Connect with us

COVID-19

Vaccines, Herd Immunity, Vaccine Passports and Fear 

Published

3 years ago

9 minute read

Since covid vaccines have become one of the early issues of Canada’s election campaign, this article and the article linked within are worthy of our attention.

Submitted by David Redman.  

After a twenty-seven year career as an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, David Redman engaged with government and the private sector to develop emergency management in Alberta, and throughout North America.  His experience in emergency management is extensive with three military tours as a Commanding Officer, responsible for international logistical operations such as the withdrawal of all Canadian personnel from Canadian Forces Europe in Lahr, Germany as well as the deployment of Canadian NATO Forces to Bosnia.  

David joined the Government of Alberta in 2000, as a Director of Emergency Management Alberta and in 2001 he was appointed Director of Crisis Management Programs.  He was Executive Director of Emergency Management Alberta from 2004 to his retirement at the end of 2005.  Since his retirement David has remained active as a respected consultant in emergency management.  

Vaccines and the idea of Herd Immunity

Herd immunity does mean different things to different folk.

Scenario “a”. I remember when I was young, before solid vaccines for mumps and measles, parents would hold parties for all the kids in the neighbourhood, if one kid caught them. It was known that measles and mumps could have serious consequences if you were past puberty and caught them, so the idea was to catch them young, ONE AND DONE. If you caught them when young, you never suffered from them again.

Herd immunities mean that if most caught these diseases young, then those who did not have them young, for whatever reason, were better protected. We now have a vaccine, that needs a booster every 10 years, that does what our parents did with parties. But basically, ONE and DONE.

Scenario “b”. Things like the cold, and seasonal flus, just happened, you caught them and got better, sometimes every year. Why? These bugs / viruses transformed a bit each year and so having caught them did nothing, other than perhaps decrease the severity. Herd immunity was never even discussed, because it did not exist for things that evolve like this.

Vaccines in Emergency Management of a Pandemic

From the start of this pandemic, the MOH and Politicians have been talking about the silver bullet of a vaccine. They have always talked about it like it was going to be scenario “a” above. It was implied that “lockdowns” were needed to get us to the silver bullet, and then everything could go back to normal. You know that from the very start I did not support this approach. 

I did not believe that a vaccine was a given, as they take years to be safely developed, and SARS CoV-2 was a coronavirus, so a vaccine simply might not be possible (read my April 2020 letter to Kenney)

Lockdowns would not and did not protect those most vulnerable.

Lockdowns do far more collateral damage than any good they may ever do. We knew that. I do not believe they do any measurable good in a country like Canada.

Even if a vaccine did come along to meet scenario “a”, then damage done by “fear” to enforce lockdowns would last a generation. (see my August Letter to the 13 Premiers)

COVID-19 Vaccines – The UK Data

If you have not read the article by Dr Ramesh Thakur, please read it now. He has summarized all the important FACTS coming out of countries around the world on the vaccines and Covid as of August 2021.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/08/vaccination-certificates-an-idea-whose-time-must-never-come/

The facts coming out now from the massive data available in the UK show that at best, scenario “b” was always the case. Even with the ‘so-called-vaccines’, the situation is that you still catch, transfer, and may even need to be hospitalized, even when fully vaccinated. That term, “fully vaccinated” will now evolve in a new fear campaign to mean three, four, endless doses, with a mythical advantage from each, if we lockdown long enough.

I define the term ‘so-called-vaccine’ because I, like many perhaps, thought of a vaccine to mean protection like the vaccines we get for measles, mumps, rubella, cholera, etc. Turns out, the manufacturers never claimed these ‘so-called-vaccines’ were like that. But our MOH and Politicians acted like they would be. 

The manufacturers said, and are saying again, we told you these ‘so-called-vaccines’ would decrease the effects of the disease once caught, particularly for the most vulnerable, but we told you that they would not stop spread. So now, after 18 months of lockdowns, we must realize that there is no silver bullet and there never was going to be one, and our MOH and Politicians knew, or should have known (Due Diligence), this fact.

So herd immunity in scenario “a” is NOT possible. Scenario “b” is how we will live with the coronavirus, SARS CoV-2.

The ‘so-called-vaccines’ are very good for our seniors, but for no one else. In fact the data now emerging shows that they may even be slightly harmful to those under 50, as they do not stop you catching Covid, but there seems to be a slight increase in negative outcomes if you do catch Covid.

Below is Table 5, out of the United Kingdom, Technical Briefing 20, dated August 6, 2021, by the Public Health Agency of Great Britain. This is part of the evidence quoted by Dr. Ramesh Thakur in his Article, Vaccination certificates – An idea whose time must never come (linked above).

From Dr. Thakur’s article “In the UK,  the Delta variant accounts for 99% of all Covid hospitalizations. Of these, 34.9% were fully vaccinated and 55.1% had received at least one dose. Public Health England’s Technical Briefing 20 in early August showed that while vaccination does reduce mortality in the over-50s by more than threefold, for those under 50, the fatality rate among the vaccinated is 57% greater than in the unvaccinated. On 10 August, a panel of experts, including most importantly the head of the Oxford vaccine team, called for an end to mass testing in Britain because the Delta variant has destroyed any chance of herd immunity through vaccination. The scientists believe it’s time to accept there’s no way of stopping the virus spreading through the entire population and monitoring people with mild symptoms is no longer helpful.”

Also from Dr. Thakur’s article:

“The waning efficacy of vaccines is also seen in Israel, including some who have been thrice-jabbed. In a locality in Jerusalem where only 42.9% of the population has been fully vaccinated, 85-90% of all hospitalised patients were fully vaccinated.”

“Because vaccinations do not prevent infection or transmission, they cannot stop the spread of the virus. Because they do reduce the severity of the illness and mortality rates, they remain important. Putting the two together, vaccines should be made available to all, strongly recommended for all vulnerable groups but not made mandatory for anyone.” 

The Way Ahead 

I have avoided the discussion of herd immunity, as it became a lightning rod very early in this pandemic. It is not part of the discussion about emergency management in a pandemic anyhow.

Protect the most vulnerable, and for the rest

STAY CALM and CARRY ON. 

Related Topics:

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 2 days ago

DOGE on the job: How Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy caused the looming government shutdown

Dr John Campbell / 3 weeks ago

Cancer cure experiences

ESG / 4 weeks ago

Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X